I wonder how many detractors of the 5.56 round would volunteer to be shot with one?

Oh now here is a logical question. I don't exactly think much of the .25 auto as a defensive carry round, but I certainly wouldn't want to be shot by it. Come to think of it, I wouldn't carry a staple gun but wouldn't staple myself with it. Get real.

Mine has a far better trigger out of the box than ANY 1911 I've owned. The only 1911 triggers that I've found to be better were triggers with custom fit sears. Maybe I got a good one, but I've felt a lot of sloppy Colts.

Oh now here is a logical question. I don't exactly think much of the .25 auto as a defensive carry round, but I certainly wouldn't want to be shot by it. Come to think of it, I wouldn't carry a staple gun but wouldn't staple myself with it. Get real.

I am stating flatly that one .223 in the center torso would be likely to kill you, perhaps quickly. The .25 would not be likely to do so

Mine has a far better trigger out of the box than ANY 1911 I've owned. The only 1911 triggers that I've found to be better were triggers with custom fit sears. Maybe I got a good one, but I've felt a lot of sloppy Colts.

A good match fitted 1911 is a wonder to shoot, great accuracy is possible because of the short, light trigger stroke

I've shot a buddies Sig 220 years ago but was unimpressed, compared to a good single action BHP or 1911 (as far as triggers) but otherwise the 220 was a fine gun.

There is an external safety.. the human brain. Unfortunately many bipedal models apparently do not come so equipped

You know it and I know it Brother.....but have you seen some of the yard apes they let in to the service.

And this is not a racial thing...I was a Foward Observer and served with some great soliders from all races. We worked in 2-3 man teams and even in training you were out in the middle of no where and had to count on your foxhole buddies.
But a rag bag is a rag bag and for the most part the whites did outclass other races. Just look at a picture of a Ranger Battalion where the standards are equal and all may try.....

I here they are getting better peformence out of the trick rounds but I love the 6.8 Remington solution. Through easy to convert our current M-16s there is still Nato standards and that was also a big push for us to go to 9.mm anyway.

I like my Glock 19 because I like a lot of bullets. I pack a 15 rounder but my spare mags are 17+2 19 rounders. Also like 38 and 22 you can find ammo in a lot more places.

But it all comes down to bullet placement and that is about practice. In a real firefight you loose 50% of your shooting skill and that is if your good. You tunnel vision and do stupid things and only KISS training and practice might save your A$$.

The best part is: all the military needs to do to switch over is a new upper receiver for the M16A2.

As far as the old 45 ACP: I say the military should switch back, but they should use the Ruger P90 platform because; it is American made, sturdy, has an alloy frame, and the safeties to make the brass happy.

For use against Iraqis, Somalis and Afghans who aren't likely to be wearing any kind of body armor, the return to the .45 ACP is a step in the right direction.

The M9 9mm they're using right now would bounce off body armor anyway. Having more bullets doesn't necessarily make it a better choice (on unarmored hostiles) if it takes more rounds to drop someone.

If I had my choice, I'd choose a Glock for military use. Or just use the old, British military tradition of just issuing ammo and let people choose their own. This would free up money for other things, give people a choice in a pistol that they have confidence in. Not likely to happen for the general troops though.

I wish they'd come up with something that has the terminal ballistics of the 10mm, .357 Sig, .45 ACP or .357 Mag and add the ability to penetrate body armor. Ammunition companies have come up with some pretty interesting ammo that wouls complete both these tasks, so why not use it?

They've done some work with bullets made from a bi-metal compound that has both the ability to penetrate armor and to provide a 95% or better, one shot stop. Supposedly lawyers from the armed forces are determining if it's legal to issue for general use. The Special Forces can use it now against insurgents, but not actual opposing army forces.

Personally, I think that the Geneva Conventions prohibition of expanding ammunition is stupid. I understand the other rules regarding prisoners of war, civilians, poison gas and medical care, but prohibiting expanding ammo is pointless.

We can pin point someone with a laser guided bomb, torch them with napalm or flame throwers, destroy entire cities through carpet bombing and blow people up with grenades and artillery shells, but God forbid someone is shot with a expanding round.

The military will probably keep up the dual calibes of the 5.56 and the 7.62, at least for a while longer. If they do make a change, supposedly it'll be to something like the 6.5 Grendel or the 6.8 SPC round that's a comprimise and uses features from both.

That's what I've heard anyway, I read the same gun magazines you guys do.

The 5.56 in a M4 isn't that bad if the target is engaged within 150 yards or so, after that it's supposed to have the wounding effect of the .22 Mag at ranges farther than that. With the A2's the terminal range is supposed to be farther.

I've heard that the military has adopted a 77 grain bullet that's pushed to faster velocities. It's made by Black Hills and it's called the MK 262 Mod 1 and there's also a Mod 2, the only difference is whether the bullet has a cannelure or not. It's not available in bulk to civilians but they do make a .223 Rem that's made to fire with lower chamber pressures and fires at a slightly slower velocity.